Brava, Theologian Ekemini Uwan.
Well worth the read. Thanks for posting!
Looking forward to her essay "The Blood of Jesus is the Bridge; Not My Back."

Sometimes the truth can be uncomfortable to hear.

Good, the majority stayed and there is where the discussions and healing begin.

Some might say it's darn near impossible.

Especially since each side can base their belief on "faith" and therefore do not need to provide any evidence whatsoever to back themselves up.

Right, g?

They seem to have forgotten the messages they read in Matthew, I guess. Par for the course, I suppose. Everyone seems to interpret their religious beliefs based on their own personal prejudices. That seems odd to me, but that's the way things are, i suppose.

To every person his or her own faith and beliefs about what it means to be a Christian. You get to pick your own path, it seems.

I think the word I'm thinking of here is "vainglorious." I guess they missed another verse or two, as well.

"Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another." Galations 5: 26

And to attack "whiteness" is to attack one of the foundational ideas of this country.

With verses that support it. But even if there weren't, they can just have "faith" and then no evidence is needed, right g?

There are Christians in every country, and in every color.

Try again.

which started in an area that would not be considered white by those who invented the idea of whiteness. But you are free to build.

That's neat.

Remember when you said that no one gets to define a religion for anyone else?

Pepperidge Farm remembers.

I said,

I'm talking about the version of Christianity that MOST European and American Christians believed in as they "explored" and took over the "New World." The version that's just as valid as yours, because as you have stated, no one can define a religion for someone else. Besides, as you also have stated, with faith, who needs evidence?

But anyway, thanks for showing once again that you would rather just insult my intelligence by calling me "confused."

You keep showing everyone what YOUR version of Christianity is like, g. I'll let readers of this forum decide for themselves what YOUR definition of the religion is.

You said some stuff that was completely separate from what he said. Unless you are contradicting yourself and declaring that there are some definitions of christianity?

But like you keep saying, faith doesn't need facts.

To say that something has nothing to do with Christianity, you must have at least an implicit definiton that excludes whatever you want to exclude.

If I identify as a Christian, do you have any idea what "race" I am?

Do you have any idea of what sex I am?

No. You know only that I identify as a Christian.

The term Christian is an identifier, but it does not define any other characteristics of the individual Christian

We are not talking about individual Christians but Christian theological movements. And any detailed study of Christian theology or history would necessarily include theological attitudes towards race. You don't have to look far to find this.

http://themelios.thegospelcoalition.org/review/the-christian-imagination-theology-and-the-origins-of-race

Not your subsequent misframing and misstatements based on your own highly idiosyncratic and virtually unrecognizable declawed version of Christianity.

The implicit definition.

Last edited Fri Apr 12, 2019, 03:15 PM - Edit history (1)

where you pretend that what 99.9999% of all Christians for 2,000 years have done has nothing to with Christianity but is merely billions of personal interpretations created independently?

So 99.9999% are white supremacists?

that should apply to all Christians. Your are the only one of the many Christians I have met, encountered online, or read about in books who pretended to believe that they could only define Christianity for themselves. But you just slipped up and provided a definition that does implicitly apply to others.

And it is a powerful assertion.

All that is lacking, of course...…...

But there's evidence everywhere in theology, in the Bible history, from actual Christians. The only place I HAVEN'T seen it is from you, but in unguarded moment you did it, and we noticed, whether you admit or not.

And the unguarded moment.

Excellent use of language.

who doesn't think Christianity has a definition? That hardly seems any better.

Very nicely done.

worships a quantum fluctuation. As befitting a quantum religion, all doctrines are held to be simultaneously true and false. Any nonbeliever who identifies an actual doctrine shall be treated with smug condescension and then shunned until the next thread.

who doesn't know who else is a Christian, has no definition of Christianity, has only a deist conception of God, holds no doctrines, denies that anything any Christian does has anything to with Christianity, takes no part of Bible literally except for the two most innocuous and generic verses in the entire book, cannot answer any questions about his faith but constantly claims to have already answered them, and behaves as if an eye for eye is always true but turn the other cheek is always false.

Now, I realize I may be wrong about you and what you believe, but your post is an exact illustration of your uniquely indeterminate beliefs. Faced with the simple reality that you have a huge array of choices to define your own Christianity, you refuse to choose one, instead asking a non-Christian to provide a definition for you. Why you think a non-Christian would have any suggestions on for you is a mystery in itself.

I never said I perceive anyone or anything to be "the essential Christian." I only said that every Christian in history, except you, is able to provide a definition of Christianity. Now, being that there have been billions of Christians in history and at present, I suppose it's possible there are a few other singletons such as yourself, but there can't be many because I've never met one, they don't seem to post in online forums, have apparently never written any books, and other Christians seem to have no awareness of them. Perhaps all the others keep their thoughts to themselves? That might be wise since other Christians who have definitions might suspect that the singletons are not actual Christians and shun them, try to convert them, or do something really horrible to them.

I define what I believe. And that definition is my personal definition of how I live as a Christian.

And because no two Christians are identical, what it is to be a Christian is not identical for every Christian.

Glad you finally came around.

The rest all think that other Christians should do certain things and refrain from other things. There is a lot of disagreement on what things are in which category, but they are unanimous that certain behaviors or beliefs apply to all Christians.

But you don't get to do that.

White supremacy is part of Christianity for millions of Christians. You don't get to tell them they're wrong unless you admit you're a raging hypocrite.

So what's it gonna be?

And it started centuries before the concept of whiteness.

And while there may be Christians who are white supremacists, that proves nothing intrinsic about a relationship between the two. There are Christians who are male. Does that prove that maleness defines Christianity?

didn't include the concept of white supremacy. I never claimed anything so ridiculous. You're arguing with at straw man. AGAIN.

But the Christianity of the people who walked out of the room in your article DOES include whiteness. And Christianity has contained elements of white supremacy since its early days in Europe.

You keep trying to have it both ways - that you get to define an essential "Christianity" for everyone, but at the same time insist no one gets to define a religion for anyone else.

You've chosen hypocrisy, it seems.

is what it was in 1776.

Because to a lot of christians, most notably the RCC, it does. They believe that because Christ was male, that only males can represent him, which is why they only allow men as priests, and similarly the pope. And while they don't exclude women, christianity, and in fact all abrahamic religions distinctly place women as second class citizens. In fact the whole thing is based on women being responsible for all our troubles.

But I just figured it was another piece of bait to further distract and stop discussion on the issue of Christianity and racism.

considering that I posted the article.

But I am quite familiar with this type of response.